Create Override Shift

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description gives useful behavioral detail (overlap deletion/replacement, idempotency on identical user and time range), but it directly contradicts annotations: it claims the endpoint is idempotent while idempotentHint is false, and it says existing overlapping overrides are automatically deleted while destructiveHint is false. Per the rules, a description that contradicts annotations scores 1.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two important behavioral exceptions. No filler, though the idempotency sentence is somewhat long and would benefit from being separated from the overlap replacement behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers overlap replacement and idempotency but misses key context: permission requirements, what exactly is replaced, and whether replacement is scoped to the same user or schedule. The annotation contradictions also reduce confidence in the stated behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and for a nested two-parameter request the description does not explain schedule_id, the data wrapper, or required attributes such as user_id, starts_at, and ends_at beyond incidental mentions of 'user' and 'start/end time'. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new override shift from provided data.' Clear, but does not differentiate this from sibling tools like update_override_shift or list_override_shifts, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implied usage is creation of an override shift, and overlap-replacement behavior is described, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus update_override_shift, create_override_recommendation, or other schedule tools. An agent knows what the tool does but not clearly when it is preferred over alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.